| Revision as of 01:52, 11 December 2007 editAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,258 editsm →Ferrylodge case: but >> however← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:51, 11 December 2007 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,059 edits →Ferrylodge case: hmmmm ...Next edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| ::Apologies if this was frivolous. In this diff another user presented an argument that invoked the arbcom case. Since I wasn't involved in the case, I wanted to know if it was a corect interpretation. ] (]) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | ::Apologies if this was frivolous. In this diff another user presented an argument that invoked the arbcom case. Since I wasn't involved in the case, I wanted to know if it was a corect interpretation. ] (]) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::hmmm, I noticed this because I watch Kirill's talkpage. So now polygamy is related to pregnancy and abortion: interesting. ] is related to the ArbCom restriction too because kids who are borne to mothers who don't have abortions have a higher tendency towards TS during stressful pregnancies, so I guess FL better not show up on that article either. Considering how extremely helpful, patient and civil I found Ferrylodge to be on restoring ] to featured status, and that I couldn't decipher his POV during ], I hope post-ArbCom hounding of Ferrylodge doesn't become an issue. ] (]) 02:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:51, 11 December 2007
|
|
| I am open to recall as an administrator. I do not place any restrictions on the petitioners beyond the standard ones found here; however, I reserve the right to disregard any petition that is unrelated to my use of administrative tools or my behavior as an administrator. | |
Advice on reforms to a Wikiproject
I'm thinking about jumping into the fray and trying to reform wikiproject College Football like you've done with the military history wikiproject. After being around WP:MIL, I can definitely say that it's easily one of the most organized and best-run wikiprojects around. If you don't mind, I'd like to bounce some questions off of you and see how I can best get cracking on this project.
- How do I send a newsletter out to the members of the project?
- What's the best way to hold coordinator elections?
- What sorts of things should be prioritized? What's the first priority?
- What sorts of problems crop up in a reorganization?
I know this is going to be a massive project if it works out. I've had a blast contributing to the Military History project, but I think this project could use some work, and I'd really appreciate any help you could provide. Thanks. JKBrooks85 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Input please
Can you help here: WP:SSP (See RFCU too) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tks. Not worth blocking to me--PS unless a range block is warranted, but I don't know much about that. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Early Muslim military history task force
I propose to reduce the time interval of this task force. Please tell us your idea here. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
ship infoboxes
(bsd) i noticed there are many ship articles that still use full table syntax instead of infoboxes (USS Northampton (CA-26) for instance). i would like to know if there is any need to upgrade them to infoboxes or not. if you don't mind, please reply on my talkpage. thanks --Ben Stone 07:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks --Ben Stone 07:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Something for you
Re: Our discussion on User name change
Just for the record, (and I'm sure you're desperate to konw ;) ) I've changed my name to Rebel Redcoat. I hope i havn't committed a major faux pas in changing my name, but it's done now. Cheers Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks a lot for the award, it was a really pleasant surprise! Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also like my thanks Kirill. And also congrats on receiving an award. Kyriakos (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Me too, much appreciated, glad to see you got one as well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, Kirill. Much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Per all above... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Dittoed, Kirill. Thank you very, very much. Thanks to you, I've been inspired to create a newsletter for Wikiproject College football. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"Undoing" content decisions
I'm wondering if there is any precedent for redacting content decisions from prior ArbCom cases. If not, is it something that you and/or the Committee might consider in theory? Thank you, Antelan 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Antelan 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar thanks
Thank you for the award and thank you for your selfless leadership, patience, and example in leading what is probably the best project in Misplaced Pages, in which I'm proud to be a participant. Cla68 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Off topic ?
Since you were the one who proposed this and this, could you look here? I believe that changing the subject of this discussion is not constructive, and we could use input on that issue (and of course, input on my main query itself).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann
Hi, Kirill. I'm not sure if the ArbCom was planning to review this case any time soon, nevertheless I'd like to request that the arbitrators hold off considering the evidence until early January, if this is at all possible. For many reasons, including (obviously) the forthcoming holidays, User:Deeceevoice and I - and no doubt many others - will not be able to give our full attention to this matter in the near future. Also, some users have yet to present their evidence. Apologies if this request is superfluous and you weren't planning to review it soon anyway. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ferrylodge case
A recent case you Arb'd was mentioned here Talk:Mitt_Romney#Any objections to a clarification?. I don't know if this is the appropriate forum to ask, but any guidance you could give might help sort things out. Mbisanz (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- The ArbCom decision stated: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." I suppose one could take the position that no Misplaced Pages article would exist but for pregnancy; however, I doubt that ArbCom meant such a thing. In any event, the article in question (Mitt Romney) has never been reverted by me once, and no admin (involved or uninvolved) has suggested otherwise, much less banned me from the article. This request by Mbisanz is frivolous, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies if this was frivolous. In this diff another user presented an argument that invoked the arbcom case. Since I wasn't involved in the case, I wanted to know if it was a corect interpretation. Mbisanz (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- hmmm, I noticed this because I watch Kirill's talkpage. So now polygamy is related to pregnancy and abortion: interesting. Tourette syndrome is related to the ArbCom restriction too because kids who are borne to mothers who don't have abortions have a higher tendency towards TS during stressful pregnancies, so I guess FL better not show up on that article either. Considering how extremely helpful, patient and civil I found Ferrylodge to be on restoring Roe v. Wade to featured status, and that I couldn't decipher his POV during that FAR, I hope post-ArbCom hounding of Ferrylodge doesn't become an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies if this was frivolous. In this diff another user presented an argument that invoked the arbcom case. Since I wasn't involved in the case, I wanted to know if it was a corect interpretation. Mbisanz (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)